Originally Posted by VVV
Itīs the reciever of the offering that maybe will produce magical and miraculous effects, not the object, by itself, that is being offered.
While i would not aggressively argue with this there are many who would no doubt argue that the "magick" or "miracle" is more a product of the mind of the offering giver him/herself. Certainly there is importance and indeed power intrinsic to objects that are spiritually offered, some more than others and i feel it is no stretch at all to attribute a bit of "magick" to these offered objects themselves.
While i do spend some time researching magick from a anthropologic/sociologic viewpoint i have spent much more of my energies over the past 30 years in the actual practice
of magick and frankly, for me, in that context, giver, gift and deity are all one.
Unfortunately i do not read French or i would most certainly check out these books.
Still this brings us, as always it must on this forum, back to keris. Again i must point out that the objects that we refer to as keris sajen were obviously not always meant to be an offering or we would not have all these fine examples in our collections. They would all be buried in the fields where they were offered. It seems obvious to me at least that a great number of these keris were intended to be kept for talismanic purposes. Perhaps this means that the name is "wrong". This is the trouble with the name game. It goes 'round and 'round and 'round. But this is the name we seem to identify with this form today. Yesterday perhaps, we called them keris Majapahit. Tomorrow there may indeed be a consensus to call them something else. Still, i see no problem personally in referring to this form as a "talismanic keris" as i did previously in this thread.